Poll: "Benevolent Sexism"...Wait, what?!

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

I don't know what's worse - this being clickbait, or the author genuinely believing this crap.

I'm fairly sure The National Review is a satirical website in a similar vein to The Onion, so don't take this especially seriously. That being said, it is a belief that is held by some of the more radical feminists out there or by people who are just looking to be offended to be royal shit disturbers. As stated in an earlier post, benevolent sexism is a thing, but it's not holding doors open or offering jackets and no one, with the exception of the aforementioned shit disturbers, believe that it is.

 

[Haerthan]

There seems to be this idea that "benevolent sexism" is "women not appreciating the good things men do for them". Indeed, benevolent sexism does give women many benefits, but it's not based on merit or mutual respect. If anything it's patronising. Many women like the status quo, they like being able to get away with things men can't, they like being fawned over and treated like they are perpetually 16 years old. But many other women find that behaviour degrading and want to be recognised for their achievements. Shrugging off the concerns of the latter group as "hysterical feminists" offends me far more than some annoying lady whining about doors being held open.

For example, have you noticed how talented female musicians that happen to be good-looking are constantly told how attractive they are? A woman does a flawless 280BPM blastbeat or nails a difficult tapping arpeggio on a guitar, but that is somehow secondary to "wow she's hot". That's benevolent sexism. Overlooking substance for superficial qualities instead.

This doesn't mean men have it easier than women. In fact I believe benevolent sexism towards women also causes an equal and opposite reaction that negatively affects men (those men freezing to death in the Atlantic ocean after the Titanic sunk). But the thing is, they're all bullshit double-standards.

A big fucking CITATION NEEDED is rrequired on your "women like the status quo" assertion mate.

Oh and guess what dudes. There is research that shows "women and children first" was a myth (more required reading at http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/31/3554854.htm ). Oh the Titanic happened and what not but it was an exception. AN EXCEPTION. There is also a reason why people still fight the patriarchy, because it didn't affect just women. Men were affected as well, by turning them into automatons without any sort of emotion (man up, be a man and all other bullshit like that). So before people knock feminism, I suggest reading actual feminist literature, not whatever Tumblr and Twitter has there.

And benevolent sexism? Really? No such fucking thing. Holding the door for people, regardless of gender, is just a prerequisite of being a nice person in general. And someone amend that fucking poll to reflect actual reality of no such thing as benevolent sexism.

Edit: Canada here so maybe the whole idea of screeching feminist is an American thing. Never in all my years I have had people telling me not to hold the door, saying instead thanks. ANd I lived in 2 countries.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A big fucking CITATION NEEDED is rrequired on your "women like the status quo" assertion mate.

"Many women", not "women", though.

And benevolent sexism? Really? No such fucking thing. Holding the door for people, regardless of gender, is just a prerequisite of being a nice person in general. And someone amend that fucking poll to reflect actual reality of no such thing as benevolent sexism.

Holding the door open isn't a good example of benevolent sexism, but that's not to say it doesn't exist.

 

[Haerthan]

A big fucking CITATION NEEDED is rrequired on your "women like the status quo" assertion mate.

"Many women", not "women", though.

And benevolent sexism? Really? No such fucking thing. Holding the door for people, regardless of gender, is just a prerequisite of being a nice person in general. And someone amend that fucking poll to reflect actual reality of no such thing as benevolent sexism.

Holding the door open isn't a good example of benevolent sexism, but that's not to say it doesn't exist.

But thats not benevolent sexism. No actual feminist actually believes that holding the door for people, or women in general is a bad thing. And I go to university, where feminism is highly prevalent. That is just common courtesy, well maybe not so common in America.

Benevolent sexism is what DizzyChugernaut or whatever her ID is said about talent vs looks. But the CITATION NEEDED is still necessary.

Edit: and I grew up in Romania, where at best ROmanians are either idiots or at worst traitors.

 

[Dizchu]

A big fucking CITATION NEEDED is rrequired on your "women like the status quo" assertion mate.

Many does not equal "all". Maybe "some" would have been a better word to use, but the point I was making is that there are women that like having the preferential treatment woman have traditionally had (in certain scenarios). Benevolent sexism has been romanticised for as long as stories have been written. The immensely popular Twilight/Fifty Shades of Grey books are chock full of benevolent sexism and were written by women, for women.

And I used the "women and children first" example merely to quickly illustrate what benevolent sexism is. Whether or not it was a widely practised code of conduct can be debated but it ultimately does not matter. People know what "women and children first" means therefore it is suitable for comparison. It is pretty much a microcosm of what benevolent sexism is.

 

[Major_Tom]

Would you do it for a dude? If the answer is 'no' then it's sexist.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

...what? So civilry is sexist now? I don't even have words for how stupid this is. I don't do kind things for women because I think they're somehow inferior, I do them because they're nice things to do!

 

[Mutant1988]

If your acts are motivated by the gender of the recipient of your attention then yeah, you are sexist. Well, unless you have some other connection to the person in question anyway.

Whether that is worth throwing a fit over though, is definitely debatable.

I'd hold the door open for anyone, because I'm nice like that. I wouldn't hold the door open just for women, because come on... Am I just supposed to slam the door shut if someone with the wrong genitals approach it?

Most of the time I don't feel that I need to do anything with doors in regards to other people. Most of the time, they all have functional arms and legs.

I don't think that the people that remark on sexism in every matter are worth listening to. Sexism is a thing and it effects a great many things, actively and passively. But you don't need to invoke it at every single opportunity because doing so only devalues the concept.

Which might sounds anti-feminist but really, I'm not. I just think that it's important to make a distinction between people that 1: Are sexist. 2: Are ignorant and 3: Are just jerks in general.

Don't put them all in the same group. That is robbing people of their individuality and you know who else does that? Sexists. Or any group that looks at a group of people (Like women) and label them in advance.

Being polite does not make you sexist. Not in itself. Is it a holdover from an outdated sexist culture? Maybe. Doesn't mean that the guy holding the door has any ill intent or is deserving of your ire at this point in time.

Sorry for sounding preachy.

 

[Bat Vader]

Wasn't a thread exactly like this created about a month or two ago? I remember posting in it.

I hold doors open for both men and women. I just like being nice.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Blanket statement, I do it for everyone. I personally think life is a little better if we all help out.

Follow up statement: I do echo confusion.

Or at least I did.

Not because "WOMEN, HOW CAN YOU FIGURE THEM OUT?". It's more over that I'm listening to many voices of the female persuasion saying different things. The direct contrast of this conversion is that I held the door open for my female friend a few weekends ago. We went to dinner and I just did it because I was at the door first and I had energy to spare.

The female waitstaff went nuts.

They were going on about how long has it been since they saw a guy did that and whatever, that it was refreshing to see chivalry isn't dead. How more men need to be gentlemen. Now compare that experience with this article. Who do I listen to?

Come to find out the answer is me. I am the arbiter of how I deal with the world. It's so easy to say "So many women say this" "So many whites say that" "A group of my gay friends...". It's all subjective to someone's sensibilities. You hold the door open for 100 different women, you'll have a 100 different thoughts on why you held the door open. Not because you happened to do it to women, but you happen to do it to one hundred different individuals. You'll get the same results if you did it for a 100 different men, whites, blacks, asians, gays, Transgenders, Satanists... Everyone is going to color their own little slant.

The most you can do is try to show you're doing what you doing not out of anything but your own desire to. If you feel like you have to hold the door open for someone weaker than you, be prepared to have that person be upset. Who wants to be thought of as weaker? If I held a door open for a guy because he can't push 2 and a half plates like I can, do you think he's going to calm down when I say "Well... dude.. I do have more upper body strength than you".

 

[Barbie Boy]

I love how some people in this thread thinks they are the poor victims here. If we stay on the "hold open the door" topic, if you do it because you want to be nice to any person (no matter gender) guess what, that is not the issue, you are off the hook, there is no problem, you do not need to be afraid, this is not sexist, the feminazis won't kidnap you in the night, do I need to make i clearer?
I open doors for women and men, I have never gotten a "funny" look, are there people out there that might? Proably. does that completely discredit "Benevolent Sexism"? No.

"Benevolent Sexism" is not about "nice to women = sexism", it's about treating them special because they are women, letting them win matches or not letting them lift heavy things because that is "man's work", which can even be seen as sexism towards men, depending on context and context is REALLY important in this kind of sexism.
People are WAY too quick to go on the defensive whenever feminism comes up, this isn't trying to blame you, or make you feel bad, just make you aware, kinda like studying psychology.
This is not something you change by making laws, or cheesy ad campaigns, it's something every individual must think about them self, why do you do what you do.

If we keep trying to scream down every little idea feminism brings up, we only lock men in their own bubble too, it's hard to argue our side if we ignore the other.

Short:
If you know you treat everyone equally/give them the same chance, no matter gender, there is no problem and don't worry, no one is 100% perfect.

You can also read Major_Tom's post, that one was pretty solid too.

 

[Haerthan]

A big fucking CITATION NEEDED is rrequired on your "women like the status quo" assertion mate.

Many does not equal "all". Maybe "some" would have been a better word to use, but the point I was making is that there are women that like having the preferential treatment woman have traditionally had (in certain scenarios). Benevolent sexism has been romanticised for as long as stories have been written. The immensely popular Twilight/Fifty Shades of Grey books are chock full of benevolent sexism and were written by women, for women.

And I used the "women and children first" example merely to quickly illustrate what benevolent sexism is. Whether or not it was a widely practised code of conduct can be debated but it ultimately does not matter. People know what "women and children first" means therefore it is suitable for comparison. It is pretty much a microcosm of what benevolent sexism is.

ok. THe first sentence was addressed in an earlier quote.

Some, sure, because it doesn't imply a majority. Sure Twilight and 50Shades of Grey were huge in America, if only because of that hunk Robert Patison and whoever plays that Gray dude, but otherwise the sexism presented in those movies is far from benevolent. It is insidious. It is nothing more than the brainwashed rambling of one woman engaging in cult-like behaviour (Stephanie whatever her fucking last name is) and a rape apology and a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE inability to understand the intricacies of BDSM ( I mean i fucking watch porn and the stuff there is exaggerated but is safe and safe-words are in place to ensure the actors' and actresses' safety- much better than that rape apology piece of shit movie and book). '

And let us face Stephanie Meyer (theres her fucking last name) is nothing more than a brainwashed woman, paying tribute to a form of thinking that has led to so many issues with the American youth it isn't even hilarious anymore. Funny how America (Canada included) has had issues with their children's sexuality and issues with rape and other sexual assault and Europe to a much lesser extent (Britain excluded the idiots, they suffer from exactly the same problem-must be an Anglo-Saxon thing). So yes I am going to keep fighting against the idea of "benevolent sexism". Cause there is no such thing.

Second your use of "women and children" is wrong because it is a myth. There was no such thing as "women and children" first. The Titanic and another British ship, (I think) are the only exceptions. And even if it wasn't a myth, it would still be an example of common sexism due to how Victorian society functioned and saw women: nothing more than mothers and objects to be saved. No rights, no obligations beyond child-rearing and no time to learn something useful like swimming, especially in a fucking country like England, where rivers are all over the place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_of_England ) and is an island.

So again no such thing as benevolent sexism. All sexism is bad. Attributing it "benevolence" is what the Victorian people did and I will be damned before I let that shit stand.

EDIT:

snip

I agree with you on every point. But that isn't "benevolent sexism". It is just sexism. No such thing as benevolent sexism.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Okay, I'm seeing a sort of trend here with other men saying "well, great, now I can't even hold a door open for a woman".

Um, no.

You can hold a door open for anybody. You can stop at the side of the road during a rainy night to help anybody with a flat tire. You can carry a heavy bag for anyone who needs the help. But here's the thing: If you do those things for a woman because you think "a woman can't do that herself", then that's sexist. If you do those things for a woman because you think "a woman shouldn't have to stoop to doing that", that's also sexist.

And if a woman believes that you did something for her because you're a man, and are therefore sexist? Well, guess what: She's sexist. She's no more a member of some overarching, misandric "matriarchy" than you are a member of a "patriarchy"; she's just a sexist asshole. Adjust accordingly.

EDIT: Of course we must bear in mind that I am from Canada, where overt politeness is pumped into several of our local water supplies.

I must've somehow gotten into a supply of Canadian water when I was a kid or something.

 

[Barbie Boy]

I agree with you on every point. But that isn't "benevolent sexism". It is just sexism. No such thing as benevolent sexism.

That is why I used qutation, didn't want to risk anyone misunderstanding or something.
But yeah, it is indeed plain regular sexism.

 

[RobXSIQ]

As a traditional southern gentleman (transplant, am a yankee by birth), I do all the gentlemens code stuff, such as open doors for the fairer sex, offer coat, offer to carry heavy items if the need is there, etc.

I wont however paint their rooms for them (unless being paid or asked to help) or anything they can do themselves that is just enabling laziness.
Women are physically weaker. that's just biology..so I will offer help there without any sort of expectation of praise outside of a thank you..just as I, having issues with my personal emotional states and difficulty in expression have benefitted often from women who seem to really enjoy just listening to my occasional sad moods that I would feel awkward talking to guys about. I see this as part gender roles, but it is also a biological truth that seems to allow the genders a symbiotic relationship.
Not every woman is Oprah, not every guy is Hercules, but law of average does allow for the roles to help one another in areas the other generally lacks in.
If this is sexist, then its time to put the term sexist from a negative term to neutral.


As far as other benevolent sexist attitudes, well, as listed above, there is many examples of actual ben-sexism, such as prison sentences, alimony, etc things that favor women due to...??? reasons. That stuff certainly needs addressing. but yeah, if some woman gets angry at me for holding the door for her, well, I actually don't mind, its not like a friendship with her would be rewarding..one would have better conversations with a plant.

 

[inmunitas]

I think the worst form of "benevolent sexism" is probably what's referred to as "White Knighting", especially on the Internet.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

So.... are we just goin to ignore the elephant in the room? You know the one, the sexual attraction elephant. I do kind thing for women because they are women, this is true. I do said kind things for women because i am sexually attracted to beautiful women. Yes that means I will step out of the way to let an attractive woman onto an elivator before me because she might smile at me if i do, and i do not let fat women on elivators before me because i dont care if they smile at me. Deal with it.

Next we will be claiming flirting is sexist.

Captcha: public good
i am becoming paranoid about captchas

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Another Escapist poll - another poll I can't vote in, as the replies are loaded.

Sorry, RJ, but "kind-hearted and gentlemanly" sounds like it's from another era. There's nothing gentlemanly about genderless courtesy.

Bugger being a gentlemen, try being a decent person.

Personally, I open the door for everyone, should I reach said door first, and have never felt this a huge burden on my soul, but the way some people create about it- you'd think doors were all made of fucking stone and had to be opened by sweat and blood. Opening doors is just fucking polite, it doesn't make anyone into a bloody medieval knight.

Ditto'd.

Also, 99% of 'a new study has found...' topics seem remarkably insignificant, as in the 'issue' being a complete non-issue. It has nothing to do with feminism or gender politics, and isn't exactly going to impact society going forward.

 

[Burgers2013]

This actually used to be a huge pet-peeve of mine. I hold the door open for anyone coming in behind me; however, I do not run ahead of whoever I'm walking with to grab the door and open it, nor do I walk around the other side of the car to open the door. I had some guys (some dating, some not) do this a lot. I found it very annoying. It's just one more little thing that highlighted that I'm being treated differently. [Although, not as bad as the checkout guy asking me "Is your dad going to change your oil?" Me: "Um, actually I'm going to." Him: "Oh, of course you are." *grin*.] I did have a real conversation about why it bothered me with a couple of guys. My complaint was that I'm not made of porcelain and can open a door, sit in a chair, and take off my jacket all by myself. The response I got was mostly: Yeah, but guys are supposed to be polite to girls.

I've never scoffed at a stranger for holding the door open for me. It is only irritating when the guy goes out of his way to run to the destination and open the door. This has only happened to me with men I know.

I didn't date anybody long who treated me like a princess even after talking to them about why such behavior bothered me. And no, I didn't end up in an abusive relationship; I am happily married to a guy who made it a competition as to who could get to the door first to open it. The loser (usually me) occasionally opened the remaining available door to be obstinate, and it became a running joke of sorts. It still annoys me when men feel like they have to do silly things like take my coat or carry heavy things (that a normal person can clearly handle) for me, but I've since loosened up about it because there are so many more things to be angry about, I sort of ran out of anger.

I will say that guys on a cultural level get a lot of mixed signals. As a teen, I didn't think any girl expected to have a guy open doors for her, pull out chairs, and other nonsense. However, when I got to college, I knew some girls that would treat their boyfriends (and other men) like crap in this way. We all went to a restaurant once, and one girl refused to leave the car because her new boyfriend didn't open her door, and when he came back to open it for her, she was mad so that wasn't good enough anymore. Come moving time in the dorms, there were girls who wouldn't move any of their own things because they could just "wait for the boys" to come get everything. My (female) roommate and I moved a half-sized refrigerator down two flights of stairs on our own, but some of these other ladies couldn't be bothered to carry anything at all. I have to say, that attitude pisses me off way more than a guy interrupting a conversation to run up the stairs and open a door. It's disrespectful, lazy, and helps perpetuate totally archaic traditions. The only time I had anyone (men or otherwise) help me move was when I was physically incapable of moving things by myself. Even then, I don't just let someone else do all the work because I'm a woman. That's ridiculous.

The one thing I would say to guys about this is: Behave how you think is best, but please keep in mind that individuals will likely have different preferences.